calendar_create_event

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses side effects (sendUpdates implies notifications) and approval nuances (recurring edits require approval). It goes beyond the basic readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the mutation impact and special cases, making the tool's behavior transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long and packs essential information without fluff. It is well-structured, starting with the core action and then adding usage constraints and approval conditions, ensuring high readability and no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description provides sufficient context for a create operation: it defines the event type, required fields, and approval conditions. It does not mention return values or error handling, but since there is no output schema and the primary purpose is clear, the missing details are minor and do not hinder correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions and the tool description does not explain individual fields beyond a passing mention of 'timed', 'all-day', 'attendees', and 'recurrence'. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage, leaving the agent to infer the meaning of accountId, calendarId, event, and requestId from context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (create) and the resource (a default calendar event), distinguishing it from update/delete/list siblings. It specifies event subtypes (timed or all-day) and key attributes (attendees, recurrence), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly highlights required parameters (requestId and explicit sendUpdates) and provides concrete conditions for approval bypass (private, guest-free, own primary calendar, sendUpdates:none). This gives the agent actionable guidance on when to use this tool and what constraints apply.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.